> > > Just concede> > > that factual products that actually exist today, are as well, whether they meet> > your> > > expectations and dreams or not. > > > > > > A product needs to be in production. > > Haha! Says who? Wikipedia? How about a business dictionary? Sure, that is part of the> definition, but not a requirement. See definition #1.> > 1.A good, idea, method, information, object or service created as a result of a> process and serves a need or satisfies a want. It has a combination of tangible and> intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers a> buyer for purchase. For example a seller of a toothbrush not only offers the physical> product but also the idea that the consumer will be improving the health of their> teeth.

What was that again?

> 2.Law: A commercially distributed good that is (1) tangible personal property, (2)> output or result of a fabrication, manufacturing, or production process, and (3)> passes through a distribution channel before being consumed or used.> > 3.Marketing: A good or service that most closely meets the requirements of a> particular market and yields enough profit to justify its continued existence. As> long as cars are manufactured, companies such as Michelin that produce tires fill the> market need and continue to be profitable.> > > Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/product.html#ixzz3NvviWnas> > > Change the word products to "things", if makes you feel better. Doesn't make it any> less real.

If it can't be purchased, it is in fact a whole lot "less real."

You, in particular, cannot use any but the legal definition. Because you are the one relying on a legal definition of "car" to make your argument. A legal definition that undermines the concept of language, because it only applies in places controlled by governments using that exact definition. If the Aeromobil, since that's the closest thing you have, is not street legal in a given place, it stops being a "car" by your reasoning when it gets there.